Estados Unidos
Highlights Global credit markets have endured a surprising bit of turbulence over the past month. Credit spreads in a variety of markets, from U.S. High-Yield (HY) to Euro Area Investment Grade (IG) to Emerging Markets (EM) corporate debt, have widened for the first time since August. Outflows from dedicated corporate bond funds helped fuel the sell-off, with a reported $6.8 billion pulled from U.S. high-yield mutual funds and ETFs over the past week according to Reuters.1 Feature This volatility in credit markets spooked other asset classes last week, triggering a few days of equity market weakness. That is no surprise given the reliable and well-known leading relationship between corporate bond spreads and equity values. For markets that are priced for perfection, with tight credit spreads and elevated equity market valuations at a time when global central banks are inching towards a less accommodative policy stance, it may not take much to prompt some nervous selling by investors. Was this risk-off move justified by any renewed deterioration in credit fundamentals? Or was it just a correction in a market that was very overdue for one? To try and answer this, we think this is an ideal time to present an update of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. Chart 1Credit Markets Priced For Perfection Our CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the U.S., Europe and Emerging Markets (EM). We have developed both top-down (based on profit data from national income/GDP accounts) and bottom-up (based on actual reported financial data of individual companies) versions of the CHM. While there are differences in methodology between the two measures due to data availability and coverage (see Appendix 1 on Page 13 for details), we have found that both are useful in providing a more complete and comprehensive assessment of the state of corporate finances. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our Developed Markets CHMs paint a mixed picture (Chart 1): Medium-term credit quality in the U.S. continues to deteriorate, especially for high-yield borrowers, although there has been some cyclical improvement on the back of the solid cyclical performance of U.S. profit growth. Euro Area corporate health remains in good shape, supported in no small part by the hyper-accommodative policy stance of the European Central Bank (ECB) that includes corporate bond purchases. Although returns on capital remain poor and leverage has increased in the Peripheral economies. U.K. corporates are enjoying very strong liquidity positions that are boosting overall credit quality despite mediocre underlying earnings performance. With the global economy enjoying a coordinated cyclical upturn that is supporting solid earnings growth, combined with global monetary policy settings that still accommodative, corporate health is not the primary driver of credit market returns at the moment. Yet if the BCA view on global growth, inflation and interest rates plays out in 2018 - all moving higher, especially in the U.S. - then the story is likely to change. Investors who have been piling into credit because of low risk-free interest rates (and spillovers from global central bank asset purchases) will begin to worry more about credit fundamentals than simply chasing higher yields, to the detriment of credit market performance. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Still Deteriorating Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has now been in the "deteriorating health" region for thirteen consecutive quarters dating back to the middle of 2014 (Chart 2). The current U.S. economic expansion has boosted corporate earnings growth on a cyclical basis. This has only acted to slow the modest decline in top-down profit margins, and much larger fall in return on capital, since the peak in both ratios three years ago. The reading on the latter from the 2nd quarter of 2017 (the last data available) is only 6%, not far from the lows seen during the past two recessions. The low return on capital during the current cycle is a disturbing development, as it suggests that there has is a surplus of capital on U.S. balance sheets that is largely unproductive and not boosting profits (the numerator in the ratio). This can also be seen in the run-up in corporate borrowing in recent years that has been used strictly to do share buy-backs. If the best investment idea that a company can have is to take on debt to repurchase its own stock, rather than borrow to invest in its own business, then the internal rate of return on that investment (i.e. the return on capital) must indeed be quite low, which is a longer-term problem for corporate health. Short-term liquidity remains in good shape for U.S. companies, but interest coverage remains near the low end of the historical range of this ratio. This combination suggests that U.S. companies are not facing an imminent cash crunch that could raise downgrade/default risk, but there is less room for error than in years when interest coverage was at higher levels. This can also be seen in the bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4). Interest coverage is at historically depressed levels for the U.S. HY names in our indicator, and has fallen back to just slightly above the levels seen prior to the 2009 recession. Leverage levels are much higher in HY - around 180% debt/equity (at book value) compared to around 100% for IG - with profit margins that are ½ as wide as those of the IG names in our CHM universe. Thus, it is no surprise to see a far worse interest coverage ratio within our HY CHM where most components are near historically "bad" levels for credit quality. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM:##BR##Still Deteriorating Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM:##BR##Still Deteriorating What is rather worrying is the fact that U.S. IG interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates. This suggests that the stock of debt has now grown so much after the rapid run-up in leverage (i.e. record bond issuance) that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate earnings, even at a time when profit growth is robust. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to rise significantly or the U.S. experiences a major economic downturn, as interest costs would rise while earnings deteriorate. Given our views on the likelihood of additional Fed rate hikes and higher Treasury yields in 2018, with even a possibility of a Fed-induced recession in 2019 if policy is tightened too aggressively to combat rising inflation, the risks to U.S. corporate debt performance (both IG and HY) will grow over the course of next year. For now, we are still recommending playing the growth phase of the business cycle by staying overweight U.S. corporate debt within global fixed income portfolios (Chart 5). The time to scale back positions will come after there is more decisive evidence that rising realized inflation is boosting inflation expectations, which will give the Fed confidence to tighten policy more aggressively. This will dampen future corporate profit expectations and likely raise risk premiums on U.S. corporate bonds. Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM:##BR##Modest Cyclical Improvement, From Very Bad Levels Chart 5Credit Rally##BR##Losing Momentum? One final point on the U.S. CHMs - in this version of the CHM Chartbook, we are adding some additional charts showing the bottom-up CHMs for some selected corporate bond sectors. These can be found in Appendix 2 on Page 13. We are only showing the charts this time, but we do plan on doing deeper dives on some individual sectors in future Weekly Reports and CHM Chartbooks. Euro Area CHMs: Still O.K., But With Some Mixed Signals Our top-down Euro Area CHM remains in "improving health" territory as it has for the entire period since the Global Financial Crisis. The direction is turning a bit more worrisome, though, as the indicator is now the closest it's been to the zero line since 2013 (Chart 6). By construction, the CHM shows deviations of the indicator from recent trends, in order to more quickly capture turning points in credit quality. Looked in that light, the steady worsening of the top-down CHM is a function of recent declines in profit margins, return on capital and debt coverage. This is offsetting the high and rising levels of short-term liquidity levels and interest coverage. The latter two points are directly related to the easy money policies of the ECB. The combination of zero (and even negative) short-term interest rates, specific liquidity programs aimed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and outright ECB asset purchases of Euro Area corporate debt have all helped drive borrowing rates to record low levels. Perhaps surprisingly, the low return on capital in the Euro Area, around 8%, is still above the return on capital from the U.S. top-down CHM of 6%. This is also confirmed by the bottom-up versions of the Euro Area CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 7) and HY corporates (Chart 8). Return on capital for Euro Area IG issuers (both domestic issuers and foreign issuers in the European bond market) is between 8-10%, a healthy number by any measure and similar to the level in the bottom-up U.S. IG CHM. Even Euro Area HY shows a return on capital of 4-6%, similar to that of U.S. HY. Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM:##BR##Trending In A Bad Direction Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##Investment Grade CHMs: Improving Within the countries of the Euro Area, our bottom-up CHMs show that the credit metrics look better for the Core versus the Periphery (Chart 9). The biggest difference comes from a cyclical improvement in profit margins and interest coverage in the Core that is not being matched in the Periphery. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##High-Yield CHMs: Looking Much Better Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##IG CHMs: Core Vs. Periphery More broadly, European corporate health seems to be improving when looking at our bottom-up CHMs. This goes against the trend we are seeing in the top-down CHM, although the latter is still in the "improving health" zone. Declining leverage, especially among the HY issuers in our bottom-up universe, appears to be the biggest source of the HY CHM improvement - again, a bit of a surprising result given how low the cost of debt finance currently is in Europe. Looking ahead, the outlook for Euro Area corporate credit looks positive in the near term, but murkier after that. The current powerful cyclical upturn in the European economy is likely to continue in 2018, as is the ECB's highly accommodative monetary policy. But at some point in the middle of next year, the ECB will be having the same discussion with the markets that was conducted over the past few months, regarding the future of the central bank's asset purchase program. This time, we think the growth and inflation data will give the ECB no choice but to announce a full tapering of its bond-buying program by the end of 2018. Interest rate hikes will come after that, but with a lag of at least one full year. European government bond yields will rise as the ECB eventually stops its asset purchases and the market pulls forward the timing of the next ECB rate hiking cycle. This also applies to corporate debt, where the ECB has become a massive buyer over the past three years. As the pace of ECB buying diminishes, Euro Area corporate bond yields should begin to rise and credit spreads will widen (Chart 10). The underlying improvements in our bottom-up Euro Area CHMs suggests that the repricing of European credit post-ECB tapering may be relatively contained. We still prefer to own U.S. corporate credit over Euro Area equivalents at this time, though. The gap between our top-down CHMs for the U.S. and Europe has proven to be an excellent directional indicator for the relative performance of U.S. credit vs. Europe (Chart 11). That CHM gap continues to favor U.S. credit, although of late only U.S. IG corporates have outperformed Euro Area corporates. European HY has been outperforming in 2018 (in excess return terms), which may be a sign that investors are seeing the better European credit health that our bottom-up CHM is showing. Chart 10European Credit##BR##Looks Fully Valued Chart 11Relative Top-Down CHMs##BR##Still Favor The U.S. Over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: No Major Causes For Concern The top-down U.K. CHM has been in the "improving health" zone for the past two years, led by cyclical improvements in profit margins and interest coverage, combined with very strong short-term liquidity (Chart 12). Return on capital is low relative to its history, which is consistent with the trends seen in the U.S. and Euro Area and likely reflects the global low productivity backdrop (although at levels not far off those seen in the U.S. and Europe). U.K. credit has enjoyed the same global liquidity tailwind that other corporate bond markets have enjoyed. This is doubly so because of the specific easy monetary policies of the Bank of England (BoE) after the 2016 Brexit vote. The BoE has already reversed the post-Brexit interest rate cut, although additional hikes are highly unlikely given muddled growth momentum and the lingering uncertainties over the Brexit negotiations. The post-Brexit weakness in the British pound has stabilized, with the trade-weighted exchange rate now in positive territory on a year-over-year basis. This will result in slower inflation rates in the coming months and a BoE that is likely to sit on its hands for a while. An environment of mushy domestic growth and a stand-pat central bank would typically be good for risk assets like corporate credit. Yet at current low yield and spread levels, it is difficult to paint a scenario of additional outperformance of U.K. credit without a catalyst like accelerating growth or monetary easing. The combination of accommodative monetary policy and a solid credit backdrop, as indicated by our U.K. CHM, leads us to maintain our current neutral allocation to U.K. corporate debt, even though valuations do not look particularly cheap (Chart 13). Chart 12U.K. Corporate Health Monitor:##BR##Credit Quality Still Improving Chart 13U.K. Credit Rally Starting##BR##To Lose Steam Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-flows-baml/investors-yank-6-8-billion-from-high-yield-bonds-third-largest-outflows-baml-idUSKBN1DH1G8 Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.2 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and Euro Area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. An EM version of the bottom-up CHM was introduced by the BCA Emerging Markets Strategy team in September 2016, which extends the CHM analysis to EM hard-currency corporate debt.3 2 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red" dated September 14 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights The recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Credit spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. What asset classes would benefit if the curve steepens and oil prices rise? Risk assets tend to do better the year before a tax cut than they do the year after. Feature BCA's view is that global growth is on solid footing. EPS growth in the U.S. is in the process of peaking, but will be relatively robust through the end of 2018. If our view is correct, U.S. stocks will outperform bonds in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, last week investors took profits in oil, the dollar, high-yield bonds and U.S. equities as the 2/10 Treasury curve flattened to just 65 bps, the lowest reading in 10 years (Chart 1). The risk aversion occurred amid concern about global growth, waning prospects for the GOP tax cut, and higher odds of a Fed policy mistake. Moreover, financial conditions tightened last week. Chart 1BCA Expects The Curve To Steepen In The Next 12 Months Even so, the recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Junk bonds have sold off in recent weeks, along with EM credit and currencies. In general, credit trends lead the stock market. Moreover, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch Survey found that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets. Any delay in passage of the tax plan could be the trigger for a correction. BCA's U.S. Equity strategists' views on financial and energy sectors run counter to the recent market action.1 Our position is that financials will benefit from a steeper yield curve and that a drawdown in inventories and robust global oil demand will allow oil prices to rise and energy shares to outperform the S&P 500. Later in this report, we will examine how other risk assets perform as the yield curve steepens and oil prices climb. We also investigate the efficacy of using the high-yield bond market to time equity market pullbacks and recessions. In addition, with investors concerned about the GOP tax bill, we evaluate the performance of U.S. financial market assets, commodities and earnings before and after stimulative fiscal policy is enacted. Slack Is Disappearing The health of the U.S. economy in Q4 is not a concern. Data released last week was solid on October's retail sales, small business optimism and industrial production. Moreover, the November readings on the Empire State and Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing indices support BCA's view that the output gap is narrowing. However, some of the bright readings on the economy in October may reflect a snap back from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The November 17 readings on Q4 real GDP from both the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now (+3.4%) and the New York Fed's Nowcast (+3.8%) show the economy is running hot. Inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 3.0% or more in Q4 indicates year-over-year GDP growth is well above the Fed's view of both potential GDP growth (1.8%) and its estimate for 2017 (2.4%). Above-potential economic expansion will ultimately lead to higher inflation, given the ever tightening labor market. Despite tightening in the past week, financial conditions have eased in the past year. The implication is that GDP growth in the U.S. is set to accelerate in the coming quarters (Chart 2). The October CPI data provide the Fed with enough reason to bump up rates again next month. The annual core inflation rate ticked up to 1.8% from 1.7%. However, it is still below the roughly 2.4% pace that would be consistent with the core PCE deflator reaching the Fed's 2% target. While inflation is still below-target, there were two encouraging signs in the report. First, BCA's CPI diffusion index nudged back above the zero line. Secondly, core services (ex-shelter and medical care) are showing signs of accelerating. This sub-component of core CPI is the most correlated with wages (Chart 3, panel 4). Fed officials will get one additional reading each on CPI (December 13), the PCE deflator (November 30), and wage inflation (December 8), before the end of the December 12-13 FOMC meeting. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost U.S. Growth Chart 3October CPI Provides Cover For The Fed Bond Market Message The recent widening of credit spreads is not a signal that a recession is imminent. Chart 4 shows that peaks in key credit market metrics are lagging indicators of recession. While the recent spread widening is worrisome on its own, spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. BAA quality spreads, the prepayment and liquidity risk spread (AAA corporate bond yield less 10-year Treasury) and the default risk spread (BAA minus AAA quality spread) are at or close to multi-decade lows.2 BCA does not believe that the spike in all these metrics in late 2015 was a signal that the economy was in or just exiting recession. Rather, the spread widening was related to the collapse in oil prices between mid-2014 and early 2016. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts oil prices to rise as high as $70 per barrel in 2018.3 Chart 4Spreads Would Need To Widen Significantly More To Signal A Recession That said, these spreads tend to trough just prior to the onset of a recession. In longer expansions in the '60s, '80s, and '90s, bottoms in spreads occurred in mid-cycle. Credit spreads bottomed at the onset of recessions in the early 1960s, late 1960s, mid-1970s and early 1980s. The BAA quality spread and the prepayment and liquidity risk spreads bottomed six months before the onset of the 2007-2009 recession. However, the default risk spread formed a bottom in late 2004, three years before the end of a cycle (Chart 4). Spreads on lower-rated high-yield debt provide slightly earlier signals than those listed above. In the mid-1990s, spreads on BB- and CCC-rated U.S. corporate debt troughed in late 1998 as Russia defaulted, oil prices collapsed and LTCM failed. The signal came more than two years before the onset of the 2001 recession. In the mid-2000s, these spreads formed a bottom in late 2004/early 2005, three years before the 2007-2009 recession. The CCC- and BB-rated OAS spreads in this cycle initially bottomed in mid-2014 as oil price peaked. BB-rated spreads are below their mid-2014 trough, but spreads on CCC-rated debt are not (Chart 5). Chart 5HY Credit Still Outperforming Treasuries Investors question if the widening of spreads is a signal for other markets, especially the equity market. BCA finds that signals from the credit markets for equity markets are short-lived. Table 1 shows that the 13-week change in high-yield OAS is coincident to changes in S&P 500 prices. Often, stocks have already changed direction before any significant sell-off in the high-yield market. Rising spreads of more than 100 basis points tend to last for an average of 16 weeks and are accompanied by a 6% drop in the S&P 500. The only episode when a peak in spreads was not associated with a drop in equity prices occurred in 2001, as the S&P 500 rebounded in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Table 1Stock Market Warning? Rising default rates are a necessary pre-condition for a prolonged interval of escalating spreads. Chart 6 shows the peaks in high-yield OAS spreads, along with the S&P, the VIX and Moody's trailing and forward default rates. In seven of the eight periods, spread widening occurred alongside a rising default rate. The only exception was in 2002 when spreads widened despite a fall in the default rate as accounting scandals rocked corporate America. Today, the default rate is low and falling. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team expects the default rate to move modestly lower in the next 12 months.4 Chart 6Spread Widening, Recessions, S&P 500 And Vol Bottom Line: The recent widening in credit spreads is one of the factors driving our cautious tactical stance on the U.S. equity market. Despite our near-term concern, BCA favors investment-grade credit and high-yield bonds over Treasuries in the next 12 months. Rising Oil And A Steeper Yield Curve BCA expects that oil prices will move 25% higher to $70/bbl in the next 12 months and that the yield curve will steepen. Above potential economic growth, tightening labor markets and rising inflation expectations will push up the long end of the Treasury curve, while the Fed lags the inflation upturn, leading initially to a steeper curve. What other asset classes would benefit if BCA's call is accurate? Chart 7 and Chart 8 show periods when oil prices rise and the yield curve steepens along with the performance of several key financial markets. Since 1970, there were five periods when oil prices moved higher and seven when the curve steepened. There are several years when both occurred at the same time, and many of these intervals also overlapped with recessions. Chart 7Lessons From Periods Of Rising Oil Prices Chart 8Lessons From Periods Of A Steepening Yield Curve The stock-to-bond ratio climbs when oil prices are rising, including the most recent episode. The S&P 500 outperformed the 10-year Treasury between 2009 and 2014 alongside oil prices, in the second half of the 1998-2008 run up in prices, and in the mid-1980s. However, during the rally in oil in the mid-to-late 1970s, stocks and bonds performed similarly. Both investment-grade and high-yield bonds outpace Treasuries as oil prices escalate. Investment-grade corporates outperformed in each of the five periods. Junk bonds struggled in the late 1980s as oil prices rose and then cruised in the 1990s, but trailed Treasuries in the first half of the 1998-2008 oil boom, finally catching up late in the cycle. The peak in both investment-grade and high-yield's performance versus Treasuries came in June 2007, providing a 12-month advance warning that oil prices had peaked for the cycle. Credit outpaced Treasuries in both oil rallies since the end of the 2007-2009 recession. Small cap performance during oil price rallies is mixed. Small caps beat large caps in the late 1970s, but underperformed in the mid-1980s. Small caps trounced large caps in the first half of the 1998-2008 energy price rally; large caps ran up and then back down again as the tech bubble swelled and then burst. Small caps only kept pace with large as energy prices soared between 2005 and 2008. Small caps eked out modest gains versus large between 2009 and 2014, and since 2016. Today, the energy sector's weight in the small cap sector is 3%, but it has ranged from 2% (2015) to 13% (2008) since 2001. Gold performs well as energy prices increase, aided in part by a weaker dollar. Gold climbed and the dollar fell during all five periods of expanding oil prices. There were several phases (mid-to-late 1980s, early 2000s and earlier this year) when the dollar mounted along with oil prices. Gold moved sideways at times as oil rose, but ultimately gold trended higher. BCA's stock-to-bond ratio generally moves lower as the curve steepens. Nonetheless, there are a few distinct but brief stages (late 1970s, mid 2000s, and 2009-10) when stocks beat bonds. There is not much difference between the performance of either investment-grade or high-yield credit in each of the six periods of curve steepening, but several shifts in a few of these cycles that overlapped with recessions are notable. Credit underperformed Treasuries in the early 1990s, early 2000s and mid-2000s as the economy entered recession, but then outperformed as the recession ended and the curve continued to steepen. Small cap performance as the curve steepens is mixed. As with credit, small caps underperform large on the way into recession as the curve steepens, but outperform after the recession ends. Recessions were not a significant factor in the performance pattern for gold and the dollar during curve steepening. Gold climbed in four of the seven periods of curve steepening, but changed little in the late 1980s/early 1990s episode. Gold declined sharply along with inflation and inflationary expectations in the early 1980s. The dollar moved significantly higher in just one of the seven periods (early 1980s) and was mixed-to-lower in the others. Bottom Line: BCA's bullish stance on the energy and financials sectors in the next 12 months is driven by our view that oil prices will continue to rally and that the Treasury yield curve will steepen as U.S. economic growth accelerates and inflation moved back to the Fed's 2% target. Stocks typically beat bonds as oil prices rally, but stocks generally underperform as the curve steepens. Gold advances under either scenario, while the dollar moves lower when the curve steepens and oil prices rise. The performance of credit and small caps in these episodes is sensitive to the business cycle. Hooray For Tax Cuts? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expects the GOP to pass a tax cut bill by the end of Q1 2018.5 Furthermore, the bill should provide a small but positive boost for the U.S. economy, and be neutral for EPS in the 10-year lifetime of the cuts. Chart 9 and Table 2 show that there have been seven periods since 1970 when the OECD's measure of "fiscal thrust"6 climbed. On average, stocks underperform bonds, although both are higher on average. Investment-grade corporate debt beats Treasuries, but high-yield underperforms as fiscal stimulus swells. Small caps (relative to large), gold, oil and the dollar, all are winners. Chart 9Equities, Bonds, Commodities And The Dollar Vs. Fiscal Stimulus Treasuries are the most consistent performers when fiscal policy boosts the economy, advancing in each of the seven episodes. Small caps beat large and the S&P 500 rises in five of the seven periods. The process to propose, debate, and enact significant fiscal stimulus can be a long one, and in many cases, investors deduce that a fiscal boost is on the way well before it is passed into law. Accordingly, risk assets tend to outperform a year before a tax plan is passed. On average, stocks beat bonds, small caps do better than large caps, and both gold and oil accelerate a year before fiscal thrust starts to intensify. Corporate and high-yield bonds keep pace with Treasuries during these episodes. The S&P 500 jumps nearly 10% a year prior to an increase in fiscal thrust, while the total return on Treasuries rises by 5% and the dollar is flat (Table 3). Table 2 and 3Impact Of Fiscal Policy On Markets, The Dollar And Earnings The most consistent performers as fiscal thrust is priced in are small caps over large, oil prices, the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury. Each of these asset classes strengthens in five of the seven periods mentioned above. Chart 10 shows the Trump trades in the past year. The performance matches the historical experience a year before the economy receives a boost from tax and spending legislation. The tax proposal before Congress provides fiscal stimulus via tax cuts, but does not provide any economic lift from an increase in government spending. Therefore, it may be more useful to review asset class performance after personal income tax rates are lowered. The GOP plan also proposes corporate tax cuts, but the historical evidence is scant; corporate tax rates have been lowered only three times in the past 45 years. There is no clear pattern of performance for U.S. financial assets and commodities in the wake of a reduction in the top marginal personal tax rate. Chart 11 shows the performance of the primary U.S. dollar asset classes and financial markets since 1970. Stocks outperformed bonds in the year after the top marginal tax rate fell in only one of the four periods (mid-1980s). The track record for corporate bonds is also mixed at best. Investment-grade either matches or beats the performance of Treasuries in each of the four periods. High-yield outperformed in the mid-1980s, but subsequently underperformed in the wake of the early 2000s tax cut. Gold was the most consistent winner, climbing in three of the four intervals. The dollar was higher in two of the three periods since moving off the gold standard in the early 1970s. There is no consistent pattern for small caps after a decrease in personal tax rates. Chart 10Market Remains Skeptical That Tax Package Will Pass Chart 11Tax Cuts Vs. Equities, Bonds, Commodities And Earnings Bottom Line: BCA's stance is that by the end of Q1 2018 the GOP will pass a tax cut that will provide a small lift to the economy. History shows that investing in risk assets in the year before fiscal thrust passes would provide the best returns. That said, the GOP plan only has tax cuts, and the performance of risk assets is mixed in the year following reduced personal tax rates, at best. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Later Cycle Dynamics", dated October 23, 2017. Available at uses.bcarearch.com. 2 "One component of the Baa-Treasury spread is the prepayment premium (Aaa-Treasury) to investors for the risk that if interest rates fall in the future, borrowers might retire old debt with new debt at lower rates. Another component of the Baa-Treasury spread is a liquidity premium (Aaa-Treasury) that compensates investors for the fact that private instruments are less desirable to hold relative to U.S. Treasuries when financial markets are turbulent and investors are very risk averse. The Baa-Treasury spread also contains a default risk premium (Baa-Aaa) to compensate lenders for the risk that borrowers may not repay, reflecting the amount of default risk posed and the price of risk."; Source: "What Credit Market Indicators Tells US", John V. Duca, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, October 1999 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Some Upside In The Nickel Market," November 2, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Into The Fire," November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism," November 8, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The change in general government cyclically-adjusted balance as percent of potential GDP, Source: OECD.
Highlights The cyclical bull market in stocks will last until the end of next year. That said, global equities have become increasingly vulnerable to a correction, so fast-money investors should consider putting on a tactical hedge spanning the next few weeks. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. We ultimately expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a larger budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Feature Rising Odds Of A Stock Market Correction We remain cyclically bullish on global equities based on the expectation that global growth will stay strong over the next 12 months, which should support corporate earnings. Nevertheless, the recent price action in credit markets is disconcerting. Yesterday's relief rally notwithstanding, junk bonds have been selling off in recent weeks, as have EM credit and currencies (Chart 1). We have found that credit trends generally lead the stock market. This raises the risk of an equity correction. The fact that the bull/bear ratio has reached a 30-year high in the weekly Investors Intelligence Sentiment survey (Chart 2), and that the most recent BofA Merrill Lynch Survey shows that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets, only add to our worries. Chart 1Junk Bond Selloff Raises ##br##Risks Of An Equity Correction Chart 2Equity Bullish Sentiment:##br## Getting Stretched Doubts about the ability of Republicans in Congress to push through tax cuts further muddle the picture. We continue to expect a tax bill to be signed into law early next year, but the intention of President Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to include a provision in the bill to rescind the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could greatly complicate this task. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, the economic benefits of the tax legislation are likely to be muted, even if equity prices do rise on the back of lower corporate tax rates. This will make selling the merits of the tax plan to the American people all the more difficult. With all this in mind, we are putting on a short S&P 500 trade recommendation. We are targeting a gain of 5% and putting in a stop-loss of 2%. We will close this trade before the end of the year, so this should be seen as a purely tactical decision appropriate for fast-money investors only. Fiscal Policy Was Tightened Too Early ... Global bond yields plummeted during the Great Recession, but then quickly recovered. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 3.95% in June 2009, while the German bund yield reached 3.72% that same month. Today, output gaps are much smaller globally than they were seven years ago, yet bond yields are substantially lower (Chart 3). Chart 3ASmaller Output Gaps... Chart 3B...But Lower Bond Yields Many theories have been offered to account for this seemingly paradoxical turn of events. Was it QE? Maybe the Phillips curve broke down? Perhaps investors have steadily revised down their estimate of the neutral rate of interest? One can make compelling arguments in support of all these explanations. However, there is one reason that has received relatively little attention: fiscal policy. Chart 4 shows that fiscal policy was tightened by an average of 4.1% of GDP in the G20 economies between 2010 and 2015. This happened despite the fact that unemployment was still quite high. One could make a half-plausible case that fiscal austerity was necessary in southern Europe, where one country after another was being attacked by the bond vigilantes (although even there, the failure of the ECB to act as a lender of last resort to European sovereigns greatly exacerbated the problem). It is harder to justify the shift towards austerity in countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. which were able to issue debt in their own currencies; or to explain why Germany felt the need to tighten fiscal policy when its structural primary balance was already in surplus. In Japan's case, the 2.9% of GDP in fiscal tightening that occurred between 2013 and the 2015 was a key reason why Abenomics failed to push the country out of deflation. Faced with the reality of what was happening on the fiscal front, central banks had no choice but to step in. They did so by slashing interest rates, in some cases pushing them into negative territory. They also engaged in massive asset purchases. The tsunami of easy money helped to keep economies afloat. But in many countries, slower government debt growth was replaced by faster private-sector debt growth (Chart 5). Debt continued to rise. It just did so in a different form. Chart 4Fiscal Belt-Tightening##br## In 2010-2015 Chart 5Private Debt Growth Picked Up##br## Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth ... And Is Now Being Eased Too Late The good news is that governments are abandoning their obsession with fiscal austerity. The bad news is that they are doing it at a time when fiscal easing is no longer warranted. Standard economic theory suggests that governments should run budget deficits when unemployment is high, and surpluses when it is low. In the U.S., the unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, 0.6 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. And yet, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are pushing for massive tax cuts which, according to the CBO, would add $1.7 trillion to federal debt over the next ten years, while pushing up the debt-to-GDP ratio by an extra six percentage points to 97% (Chart 6). Limited Supply-Side Benefits Proponents of the legislation argue that lower tax rates will spur growth by so much that they will pay for themselves. This is highly unlikely. Chart 7 shows that major tax cuts in the past have always led to a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, whereas tax hikes have led to a deceleration, or even outright decline, in the debt ratio. Even the much lauded 1981 Reagan tax cuts had to be partially rolled back in 1982 after the budget deficit widened sharply. Chart 6More Red Ink Chart 7Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? The growth-enhancing effects of lower tax rates are likely to be smaller at present than they were in the early 1980s. The Reagan tax cuts were introduced when the economy was in the doldrums and government debt levels were much lower than they are today. Cross-border ownership of foreign assets has also increased tremendously since the Reagan era. Foreigners now own more than $10 trillion of U.S. equities, or close to 35% of the total, up from 10% in the early 1980s (Chart 8). This implies that a corporate tax cut would not only represent a massive windfall for foreigners - a bizarre outcome for a self-professed nationalist president - but would mean that a smaller share of capital gains taxes will make their way into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. Personal income tax cuts are also likely to generate much less bang for the buck. Most empirical studies suggest that lower personal tax rates increase labor supply largely by boosting female labor participation.1 The prime-age female labor participation rate in the U.S. today is 11 points higher than it was in 1980, which limits the scope for further gains. Moreover, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the top personal tax rate stood at 70% (Chart 9). At such a high rate, a one percentage-point cut in the top rate increases take-home pay by 3.3% (1/30). Today, the top rate stands at 39.6%, so a one-point cut would raise after-tax income by only 1.6% (1/60.4). Thus, the incentive effect from cutting the top marginal tax rate is only half of what it was back then. And, of course, the lower the tax rate, the less incremental revenue the government gets from every additional dollar of income. A reasonable estimate is that the revenue offset from tax cuts today would be only one-quarter of whatever modest amount it was in the early 1980s. Chart 8Growing Share Of U.S. Equities##br## Is Held By Foreigners Chart 9Lower Bang For The Buck From##br## Cutting Individual Tax Rates Tax Cuts Versus Tax Reform This is not to say that tax reform is undesirable. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are quite high, but effective rates are very low, given the myriad deductions and tax-sheltering strategies (Chart 10). The combination of base-broadening and lower statutory rates would make the economy more efficient. In this respect, the set of reforms unveiled by Paul Ryan earlier this year actually had a lot going for it. Unfortunately, the half-measures in both the House and Senate bills run the risk of making the current system even worse. For example, the proposed transition from the current system where U.S. companies are taxed on their worldwide profits to one where they are taxed only on the profits they earn in the U.S. is likely to increase the incentive to use accounting gimmicks to shift more taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions abroad.2 The new "pass through" tax rate of 25% would also provide passive business owners, who are currently subject to the top marginal tax rate, with a massive tax break. Chart 10Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap In theory, full business investment expensing is a good idea, but the economic impact is likely to be modest. Companies pay less tax upfront when they can write off the value of capital expenditures immediately, but incur higher taxes in the future due to the absence of any further depreciation expenses. When interest rates are low, as they are today, the present value gain from shifting tax liabilities around in this way is bound to be small. This, along with the fact that companies can already write off a large share of capital purchases under current law in the first few years after they are made, will limit the benefits of the proposal. The full expensing of capital purchases also expires after five years under the Republican plan. This could cause companies to pull forward capital spending simply to game the tax code. Such a policy could be justified if the economy were depressed, but that is not the case today. The Tax Foundation, a free-market think tank that a number of left-leaning economists have accused of overstating the benefits of tax cuts, estimates that temporary expensing would raise the level of real GDP by only 0.18% after a decade, compared to 1.6% in the case of permanent expensing.3 From Populism To Pluto-Populism Chart 11This Is Not Populism Martin Wolf has aptly referred to Donald Trump as a "pluto-populist" - someone who talks like a champion of the poor and middle class to his adoring supporters, but actually pushes for policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans.4 Many of the proposals in the Republican tax bills - including the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the phase-out of the estate tax, and the aforementioned reduction in the business pass-through tax - would further skew the distribution of income towards the rich (Chart 11). Indeed, the benefits for the wealthy grow over time under the proposed plans, even as those for the middle class dissipate, eventually reaching the point where the average middle-class household ends up paying more taxes under the House plan than they do now (Chart 12).5 And no, one cannot say that this outcome is simply the inevitable consequence of the fact that the rich pay most of the taxes. Once regressive taxes such as the payroll tax and state and local taxes are included in the tally, the rich pay about the same share of their income in taxes as the middle class (Chart 13). To make matters worse, the Republican tax bill would trigger $25 billion in Medicare cuts and $111 billion in cuts to other government programs under current PAYGO rules. More pain for middle-class voters. Donald Trump was quick to throw Ed Gillespie under the bus after he failed to win the governor's race in Virginia, tweeting that Gillespie "did not embrace me or what I stand for." But the truth is Trump has not embraced Trumpism either. We were widely scorned in the early days of the primary season for saying that Trump would secure the Republican nomination, and mocked again in 2016 for predicting that he would win the presidential election. At this point, however, the odds are high that the Republicans will lose the House next November and Trump will fail to get re-elected in 2020. Chart 12Middle-Class Tax Cuts Will Morph Into Tax Hikes Chart 13U.S. Taxation Not Very Progressive Investment Conclusions U.S. equities are overbought and ripe for a correction. As is almost always the case, lower stock prices in the U.S. will negatively impact global bourses. Fortunately, the selloff is likely to be short-lived, with strong global growth and rising earnings powering stocks into 2018. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. Nevertheless, we expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a wider budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Chart 14Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Higher government debt levels will also increase the temptation to inflate away debt. As we discussed a few weeks ago, rising political polarization is affecting every facet of society, with the NFL just being the latest example.6 It is hard to believe that the Fed will remain above the fray. History suggests that the loss of central bank independence is often associated with higher inflation (Chart 14). Such may be America's fate as well. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Robert K. Triest, "The Effect Of Income Taxation On Labor Supply In The United States," The Journal of Human Resources, Special Issue on Taxation and Labor Supply in Industrial Countries, 25:3 (Summer 1990); and Costas Meghir and David Phillips, "Labour Supply And Taxes," IZA Discussion Paper No. 3405 (March 2008). 2 Both the House and Senate versions of the tax bill have a number of provisions to limit the ability of corporations to shift profits abroad, but at present, it is unclear how effective these measures will be. 3 Please see "Economic and Budgetary Impact of Temporary Expensing," Tax Foundation, dated October 4, 2017. 4 Martin Wolf, "Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End," Financial Times, March 1, 2016. 5 This mainly occurs because the "Family Flexibility Credit" expires after 2022. The expanded Child Tax Credit is also not indexed to inflation under the House plan, implying that its value to tax filers will go down over time. In addition, the repeal of the individual mandate would cause fewer lower-income earners to buy health insurance, leading them to forego the tax subsidies that they would otherwise receive. 6 Please see , "Three Demographic Megatrends," dated October 27, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
The shares of movie & entertainment firms have been under pressure in the last several weeks, despite what has generally been a positive Q3 earnings print, driven down by speculation the AT&T/Time Warner merger may be blocked by the Department of Justice. Rumors that Disney was interested in acquiring most of Fox were not enough to lift spirits in the beleaguered index. The more important driver is the secular decline in consumer spending on media, which seems likely to continue to weigh on the industry's top line. High operating leverage, which has been a boom to EPS growth in the past, is now swinging the other way, explaining the drop in earnings growth (second panel). The industry has rerated to the downside in 2017, implying that the weak profit outlook is mostly priced in to the index (bottom panel). As such, we continue to recommend a benchmark allocation in the S&P movies & entertainment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MOVI - DIS, TWX, FOXA, FOX, VIAB.
U.S. home sales have been soaring, with new single-family homes reaching a 10-year high in September, driven by still-low financing costs and peaking consumer sentiment. This surging housing demand which includes temporary hurricane rebuilding related sales, has already shown up in earnings; HD reported a 7.9% same store sales increase in Q3 yesterday, a stunning number relative to the current malaise in the overall retail landscape. This elevated demand, coupled with the impact of countervailing duties on Canadian imports, has pushed lumber to the stratosphere. High lumber prices benefit home improvement retailers' top lines (third panel), but serve to crimp builders' margins. With a much better profit outlook and a still reasonable valuation (bottom panel), we think the best way to gain exposure to the healthy domestic housing market is via the S&P home improvement retail index, not the S&P homebuilders. Accordingly, we reiterate our respective overweight and neutral recommendations. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW and BLBG: S5HOME - PHM, DHI, LEN.
Managed health care stocks have performed exceptionally well since our early-April 2016 overweight recommendation, besting the market by roughly 24%. This begs the question: Is the time ripe to lock in impressive profits and move to the sidelines or is there more upside left? Leading profit indicators suggest that more gains are in store for the relative share price ratio. After petering out in 2016, our managed care cost proxy has plummeted by over 350bps from the recent peak (shown inverted, second panel). Given that premiums are set on a trailing cost basis, profit margins should surprise to the upside. Further, drug price deflation should prove a boon to managed care providers' bottom lines and the pharmaceutical sector's pain this year will be the managed health care industry's gain (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Melting input costs should augment managed health care profits, supporting a durable valuation expansion phase. Stay overweight and see this week's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.